Why Still Works
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
JMAD Media Ownership Report
JMAD New Zealand Media Ownership Report 2014 Published: 2014 December 5 Author: Merja Myllylahti This New Zealand Ownership Report 2014 is the fourth published by AUT’s Centre for Journalism, Media and Democracy (JMAD). The report finds that the New Zealand media market has failed to produce new, innovative media outlets, and that all the efforts to establish non-profit outlets have proved unsustainable. The report confirms the general findings of previous reports that New Zealand media space has remained highly commercial. It also confirms the financialisation of media ownership in the form of banks and fund managers. The report also observes that in 2014 convergence between New Zealand mass media and the communications sector generally was in full swing. Companies, such as Spark (former Telecom NZ), started to compete head-to-head with the traditional broadcasters on the online on-demand video and television markets. The American online video subscription service Netflix is entering the NZ market in March 2015. Additionally, the report notes evidence of uncomfortable alliances between citizen media, politicians, PR companies and legacy media. As Nicky Hager’s Dirty Politics book revealed, the National Party and PR practitioners used the Whale Oil blog to drive their own agendas. Also, events related to Maori TV, TVNZ and Scoop raise questions about political interference in media affairs. It is now evident that the boundaries between mainstream media, bloggers, public relations practitioners and politicians are blurring. Key events and trends concerning New Zealand media Financialisation of mass media ownership confirmed Substantial changes in Fairfax, APN and MediaWorks ownership Competition heats up in online television and video markets Turbulence at Maori TV Blurred lines among politicians, bloggers, journalists and PR practitioners The JMAD New Zealand media ownership reports are available here: http://www.aut.ac.nz/study- at-aut/study-areas/communications/media-networks/journalism,-media-and-democracy-research- centre/journalists-and-projects 1 1. -
Charities, Philanthropists, Policy Entrepreneurs, International Companies and State Schooling in Aotearoa New Zealand
CHARITIES, PHILANTHROPISTS, POLICY ENTREPRENEURS, INTERNATIONAL COMPANIES AND STATE SCHOOLING IN AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND Final report to the New Zealand Educational Institute Te Riu Roa, New Zealand Post Primary Teachers’ Association Te Wehengarua, and New Zealand Primary Principals’ Federation Ngā Tumuaki o Aotearoa John O’Neill with Connor Duffy and Sarojinie Fernando Massey University Te Kunenga Ki Pūrehuroa, Manawatū July 2016 Contents i ii ListAcknowledgements of Tables and Figures iii Summary v Introduction 1 Context 3 Transparency, understanding and debate 4 Blurring public and private in state schooling 5 ‘Modernising’ state schooling 6 Educational Management Organisations 17 For-profit 21 Not-for-profit 25 Philanthropy 28 Regulation 29 Giving 35 Investing 36 Educational charities in New Zealand 40 Policy N 47 Actors 47 etworks 51 Cases 58 NetworksPearson 59 Cognition Education 65 Core Education 76 Foundation North 86 COMET 98 Kidscan 109 Conclusion 116 References 119 Appendices xix Appendix A: Methodology xix Appendix B: Educational charities with annual income between $1 million and $10 million xxvi Appendix C: Case organisation Tables and Figures xxxiii social network i Acknowledgements The direct costs of the research were funded jointly by New Zealand Educational Institute Te Riu Roa, New Zealand Post Primary Teachers’ Association Te Wehengarua and New Zealand Primary Principals’ Feder Aotearoa. ation Ngā Tumuaki o Tom Haig, Liz Hawes and Stephanie Mills provided advice, guidance and feedback throughout the project. rature searches and social Connor Duffy undertook the main web and lite networktwo Charities analyses. Services Dr Sarojinie databases. Fernando undertook the statistical analysis of the Ella B ation information retrieval, Dylan Roberts withourke analysis assisted of annual with financial case organis statements, and Ju final report. -
Evolution of E-Mobility in Carsharing Business Models
Evolution of E-Mobility in Carsharing Business Models Susan A. Shaheen1 and Nelson D. Chan2 Transportation Sustainability Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, [email protected], [email protected] Abstract Carsharing continues to grow worldwide as a powerful strategy to provide an alternative to solo driving. The viability of electric vehicles, or EVs, has been examined in various carsharing business models. Moreover, new technologies have given rise to electromobility, or e-mobility, systems. This paper discusses the evolution of e-mobility in carsharing business models and the challenges and opportunities that EVs present to carsharing operators around the world. Operators are now anticipating increased EV proliferation into vehicle fleets over the next 5- 10 years as technology, infrastructure, and public policy shift toward support of e- mobility systems. Thus, research is still needed to quantify impacts of EVs in changing travel behavior toward more sustainable transport. 1 Introduction Carsharing enables a group of members to share a vehicle fleet that is maintained, managed, and insured by a third-party organization. Primarily used for short-term trips, carsharing can provide affordable, self-service vehicle access 24-h per day for those who do not have a car, want to reduce the number of vehicles in their household, or do not use their vehicle during the day for long periods of time. Rates include fuel, insurance, and maintenance. Ideally, carsharing works best in a neighborhood, business, or campus setting where users could walk, bike, share rides, or take public transit to access the shared-use vehicles. Carsharing has evolved through several phases since the first carsharing system began in Europe in 1948. -
Sharing and Tourism: the Rise of New Markets in Transport
SHARING AND TOURISM: THE RISE OF NEW MARKEts IN TRANSPORT Documents de travail GREDEG GREDEG Working Papers Series Christian Longhi Marcello M. Mariani Sylvie Rochhia GREDEG WP No. 2016-01 http://www.gredeg.cnrs.fr/working-papers.html Les opinions exprimées dans la série des Documents de travail GREDEG sont celles des auteurs et ne reflèlent pas nécessairement celles de l’institution. Les documents n’ont pas été soumis à un rapport formel et sont donc inclus dans cette série pour obtenir des commentaires et encourager la discussion. Les droits sur les documents appartiennent aux auteurs. The views expressed in the GREDEG Working Paper Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the institution. The Working Papers have not undergone formal review and approval. Such papers are included in this series to elicit feedback and to encourage debate. Copyright belongs to the author(s). Sharing and Tourism: The Rise of New Markets in Transport Christian Longhi1, Marcello M. Mariani2 and Sylvie Rochhia1 1University Nice Sophia Antipolis, GREDEG, CNRS, 250 rue A. Einstein, 06560 Valbonne France [email protected], [email protected] 2University of Bologna, Via Capo di Lucca, 34 – 40126, Bologna, Italy [email protected] GREDEG Working Paper No. 2016-01 Abstract. This paper analyses the implications of sharing on tourists and tourism focusing on the transportation sector. The shifts from ownership to access, from products to services have induced dramatic changes triggered by the emergence of innovative marketplaces. The services offered by Knowledge Innovative Service Suppliers, start-ups at the origin of innovative marketplaces run through platforms allow the tourists to find solutions to run themselves their activities, bypassing the traditional tourism industry. -
Quickar(PDF 8.49
7 September 2017 The Secretary, Economy and Infrastructure Committee Parliament House, Spring Street EAST MELBOURNE VIC 3002 Dear Secretary, Please accept this cover letter and attached report as a submission to the Committee’s Inquiry into Electric Vehicles. A mushrooming of Melbourne’s population over the next 20 years combined with the phenomena of significant population detachment from economic hubs driven by growing rates of car ownership and burgeoning investment by government in private car driver-driven infrastructure is a looming urban mobility crisis. We risk sleepwalking into a situation where our once “world’s most livable city” has insufficient public transport, overloaded infrastructures, a default logarithmic expansion of motorised means of transport, a vast rise in air and noise pollution and CO2 emissions, a concomitant parking capacity problem and increasing disparity in the social equity standards between communities of very near proximity. What should the Victorian Government do? The attached report assesses the opportunity for Free Floating Car Sharing in Zero Emission urban transport. This report concludes that Free Floating Car Sharing is an innovative technology with a smart operating model that improves cities. It offers cities a no-cost, scaleable transport alternative to supplement existing transport systems and reduce inner urban vehicle congestion. Moreover, Free Floating Car Sharing offers Melbourne’s best opportunity for a definitive, practical and evolutionary pathway into a sustainable Zero Emission urban mobility future through the accelerated uptake of Electric Vehicles. Quickar Pty Ltd (ABN 99 611 879 513) Melbourne, 3000 Victoria, Australia Page 1 of 66 In light of these conclusions, the Victorian Government should: • Enable Free Floating Car Sharing. -
Benchmarking of Existing Business / Operating Models & Best Practices
SHared automation Operating models for Worldwide adoption SHOW Grant Agreement Number: 875530 D2.1.: Benchmarking of existing business / operating models & best practices This report is part of a project that has received funding by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement number 875530 Legal Disclaimer The information in this document is provided “as is”, and no guarantee or warranty is given that the information is fit for any particular purpose. The above-referenced consortium members shall have no liability to third parties for damages of any kind including without limitation direct, special, indirect, or consequential damages that may result from the use of these materials subject to any liability which is mandatory due to applicable law. © 2020 by SHOW Consortium. This report is subject to a disclaimer and copyright. This report has been carried out under a contract awarded by the European Commission, contract number: 875530. The content of this publication is the sole responsibility of the SHOW project. D2.1: Benchmarking of existing business / operating models & best practices 2 Executive Summary D2.1 provides the state-of-the-art for business and operating roles in the field of mobility services (MaaS, LaaS and DRT containing the mobility services canvas as description of the selected representative mobility services, the business and operating models describing relevant business factors and operation environment, the user and role analysis representing the involved user and roles for the mobility services (providing, operating and using the service) as well as identifying the success and failure models of the analysed mobility services and finally a KPI-Analysis (business- driven) to give a structured economical evaluation as base for the benchmarking. -
Empire SSN 0957-4948 Is Published 12 Times a Year by Bauer Consumer Media Ltd
006 JUNE 2016 EDITORS CONTRIBUTING EDITORS 4JNPO#SBVOE "OHJF&SSJHP *BO'SFFS 8JMM-BXSFODF *BO/BUIBO Editor-In-Chief Kim Newman, David Parkinson, Nev Pierce, Adam Smith, Damon Wise Terri White CONTRIBUTORS Words: Neil Alcock, Dan Aykroyd, Eve Barlow, Simon Crook, Fred Dellar, Deputy Editor Jimi Famurewa, David Hughes, Dorian Lynskey, Patrick Peters, Olly Jonathan Pile Richards, Emma Simmonds, Anna Smith (ALS), Sam White, Owen Williams. Subbing: Lucy Williams. Photography: Sarah Dunn, Steve 020 7295 6722 4DIPàFMEIllustrations: Noma Bar, Jacey, Bill McConkey, John Royle ART BAUER MEDIA Chief Executive Paul Keenan Creative Director Group Managing Director Rob Munro-Hall Publishing Director Liz Martin Chris Lupton Business Analyst Natalie Talbot 020 7859 8642 Managing Editor Sophie Price MARKETING Deputy Art Director Communications Director Jess Blake 0207-208 3424 Direct Marketing Manager Julie Spires 01733 468164 Adam Gerrard Senior Marketing Manager Natalie Wilkins 020-7208 3535 020 7520 6447 Marketing Manager Ally Johnstone 020-7859 8491 Marketing Executive Alex Penge 020-7208 3521 Direct Marketing Executive Rebecca Lambert 01733 468804 Newstrade Marketing Manager, Men’s, Film & Music Photographic Director Dave Clark 020-7520 6465 Debi Berry 020 7208 3705 PRODUCTION Print Production Controller Carl Lawrence 01733-468858 Ad Production Controller Katie Kerry 01733-468878 Designer ePublishing Production Director Alan Kindell 020-7859 8604 ed’s letter Olly Gibbs ADVERTISING 020 7295 8595 Group MD Abby Carvosso PA to Group MD Alison Meadley Head of Magazine Media Clare Chamberlain THERE ARE CERTAIN FILMS THAT SHOULD BE LEFT Junior Designer Head of Magazine Brands Rachel Flower Group Commerical Director Simon Kilby alone. We don’t want a remake of Jaws. -
The 47Th Voyager Media Awards. #VMA2020NZ
Welcome to the 47th Voyager Media Awards. #VMA2020NZ Brought to you by the NPA and Premier sponsor Supporting sponsors Canon New Zealand, nib New Zealand, ASB, Meridian Energy, Bauer Media Group, NZ On Air, Māori Television, Newshub, TVNZ, Sky Sport, RNZ, Google News Initiative, Huawei, Ovato, BusinessNZ, Asia Media Centre, PMCA, E Tū , Science Media Centre, Air New Zealand and Cordis, Auckland. Order of programme Message from Michael Boggs, chair of the NPA. Jane Phare, NPA Awards Director, Voyager Media Awards Award ceremony hosts Jaquie Brown and James McOnie Jaquie Brown James McOnie Jaquie and James will read out edited versions of the judges’ comments during the online ceremony. To view the full versions go to www.voyagermediaawards.nz/winners2020 after the ceremony. In some cases, judges have also added comments for runners-up and finalists. Winners’ and finalists’ certificates, and trophies will be sent to media groups and entrants after the online awards ceremony. Winners of scholarship funds, please contact Awards Director Jane Phare, [email protected]. To view the winners’ work go to www.voyagermediaawards.nz/winners2020 To view the list of judges, go to www.voyagermediaawards.nz/judges2020 Information about the historic journalism awards, and the Peter M Acland Foundation, is at the end of this programme and on www.voyagermediaawards.nz Order of presentation General Best headline, caption or hook (including social media) Judges: Alan Young and John Gardner Warwick Church, NZ Herald/NZME; Rob Drent, Devonport Flagstaff and Rangitoto Observer; Warren Gamble, Nelson Mail/Stuff; and Barnaby Sharp, Nelson Mail/Stuff. Best artwork/graphics (including interactive/motion graphics) Judges: Daron Parton and Melissa Gardi 1 News Design Team/TVNZ; Richard Dale, NZ Herald/NZME; Cameron Reid and Vinay Ranchhod, Newshub/MediaWorks; Toby Longbottom, Phil Johnson and Suyeon Son, Stuff Circuit/Stuff; and Toby Morris, The Spinoff. -
The Future of Car Ownership August 2017 About the NRMA
Future mobility series The future of car ownership August 2017 About the NRMA Better road and transport infrastructure has been a core focus of the NRMA since 1920 when our founders lobbied for improvements to the condition of Parramatta Road in Sydney. Independent advocacy was our foundation activity, and it remains critical to who we are as we approach our first centenary. We’ve grown to represent over 2.4 million Australians, principally from New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. We provide motoring, mobility and tourism services to our Members and the community. Today, we work with policy makers and industry leaders, advocating for increased investment in road infrastructure and transport solutions to make mobility safer, provide access for all, and deliver sustainable communities. By working together with all levels of government to deliver integrated transport options, we give motorists real choice about how they get around. We firmly believe that integrated transport networks, including efficient roads, high-quality public transport and improved facilities for cyclists and pedestrians, are essential in addressing the challenge of growing congestion and providing for the future growth of our communities. The NRMA acknowledges the work of Sam Rutherford on this report. Comments and queries Ms Carlita Warren Senior Manager – Public Policy and Research NRMA PO Box 1026, Strathfield NSW 2135 Email: [email protected] Web: mynrma.com.au Cover Image: nadla – Getty Images Contents Executive summary 2 Challenges -
Memo Relevant to Item
Item 9.2 At Council 21 November 2016 RELEVANT INFORMATION FOR COUNCIL FILE: S116884.008 DATE: 21 November 2016 TO: Lord Mayor and Councillors FROM: Graham Jahn, Director City Planning, Development and Transport SUBJECT: Information Relevant To Item 9.2 – Post Exhibition - Draft Car Sharing Policy 2016 - At Council - 21 November 2016 Alternative Recommendation It is resolved that: (A) the draft Car Sharing Policy 2016, as shown at Attachment A to the subject report, be adopted, subject to the amendment of clause 5.2 such that it read as follows (with additions shown in bold italics and deletions shown in strikethrough): 5.2 Preferential Allocation In precincts where more than 75% of potential on-street spaces in a precinct are held by a single operator, the City may choose to will issue remaining spaces preferentially to another eligible operator in order to facilitate competition and user choice. (B) a revised car sharing permit fee be publicly advertised in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993. Background At the meeting of the Planning and Development Committee (Transport, Heritage and Planning Sub-Committee) on 14 November 2016, further information was sought. 1. Preferential allocation of on-street spaces The draft Policy 2016 proposes that, in precincts where more than 75% of the total potential on-street car share spaces are held by a single operator, the City may choose to issue remaining spaces preferentially to another eligible operator in order to facilitate competition and user choice within precincts. After discussion in Committee, further examination of potential mechanisms to operationalise this has identified some potential implementation and probity issues. -
Public Version Fairfax / Nzme Response to Submissions 29
PUBLIC VERSION FAIRFAX / NZME RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS 29 JULY 2016 INTRODUCTION 1. NZME Limited 1 (" NZME ") and Fairfax NZ Limited (" Fairfax ") have had the opportunity to review the public submissions to the Commerce Commission (" Commission ") in response to the Commission's Statement of Preliminary Issues dated 14 June 2016 (" SOPI ") in relation to the Fairfax / NZME application (the " Application ") seeking approval to merge the New Zealand operations of NZME and Fairfax (the "Transaction "). 2. Fairfax and NZME's responses and observations in relation to the submissions and the key points contained in them are set out below. Appendix Two also contains an overview of the recent Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2016 and The Pew Research Center State of the News Media 2016 report that reinforce the acceleration of the trends identified in the Application. SUMMARY 3. The Commission received 49 submissions in total. Once duplicated submissions from a single person / economic entity are removed, there are fewer than 40.2 This is a low number of submissions on a high-profile transaction involving media. 3 4. All the submissions were from competitors, journalists, or academics / public policy lobby groups. That is unusual when measured, for example, against the range of submissions received by the Commission on its last high profile authorisation. 4 It is however not surprising. In traditional competition analysis, if competitors are opposing, it is often an indicator that the merger will be pro-competitive,5 as the merged entity is potentially expected to provide a better offering to customers (in this case, consumers and advertisers). 5. -
For Personal Use Only Use Personal For
Caltex Australia Limited Australia Caltex 2018 Annual Report Annual 2018 2018 Annual Report Capability Scale For personal use only FUELS & INFRASTRUCTURE International sourcing and supply 0700 HRS Kurnell Fuel Import Terminal Caltex Australia Limited 2018 Annual Report Caltex Supply Chain 2 Refining 3 Integrated Australian fuel supply chain 5 Retail fuel and convenience 7 Network of Assets 8 2018 Highlights 10 Message from the Chairman and the Managing Director & CEO 12 Operations Reports 16 Fuels & Infrastructure 17 Convenience Retail 21 Our people taking us further 25 Our approach to sustainability 29 2018 Financial Report 33 On the Cover Ampol is Caltex’s international trading and shipping team based in Singapore. It sources petroleum products from global markets and connects their supply chains with our market leading infrastructure positions, such as our import terminal in Kurnell, New South Wales (pictured). This international supply capability underpins Caltex’s reputation for reliable supply to wholesale customers, while ensuring the competitiveness of our refining and retail operations. Ampol also manages supply to our first international acquisition, Gull New Zealand, our partner Seaoil in the Philippines, in which Caltex holds a 20% equity interest, and our other international wholesale customers. About this Report This 2018 Annual Report for Caltex Australia LimitedFor personal use only (ACN 004 201 307) has been prepared as at 26 February 2019. Please note that terms such as Caltex and Caltex Australia have the same meaning as Caltex Group, unless the context requires otherwise. An interactive version of the Annual Report is available on our website. Visit www.caltex.com.au to download or view a copy.